Partanen v. Gallagher
475 Mass. 632
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Partanen and Gallagher were long-term partners who, with shared intent that both be parents, used in vitro fertilization; Gallagher gave birth to two children (Jo and Ja) with Partanen's participation and consent.
- Partanen lived with and helped raise the children from birth: caregiving, decisionmaking, financial support, public representation as "Mommy," and joint family life.
- After the couple separated (2013), Partanen sought a declaration of full legal parentage in the Probate and Family Court (filed 2014); the court dismissed the complaint under Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 12(b)(6).
- The core statutory provisions at issue were G. L. c. 209C § 1 (purpose) and § 6(a)(4) (presumption where one "jointly with the mother, received the child into their home and openly held out the child as their child").
- The question on direct review was whether a nonbiological partner may be a "presumed parent" under G. L. c. 209C § 6(a)(4); the SJC reversed the dismissal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person without a biological connection can be a "presumed parent" under G. L. c. 209C § 6(a)(4) | Partanen: statute read gender‑neutrally; presumption applies where both intended and acted as parents regardless of biology | Gallagher: presumptions were meant to establish biological parentage; nonbiological status should permit rebuttal (e.g., genetic testing) | Court: A biological relationship is not required; § 6(a)(4) may apply to nonbiological partners when children were born to two people who jointly received and held them out as theirs |
| Whether allegations here suffice to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Partanen: pleaded participation in conception, presence at births, joint parenting, public holding out, and shared home | Gallagher: factual allegations insufficient because Partanen lacks biology; genetic testing could rebut presumption | Court: Allegations sufficiently plead that children were “born to” both and that they were received into the home and held out; complaint survives dismissal |
| Whether genetic testing can rebut a holding‑out presumption in nonbiological parentage claim | Partanen: genetic testing irrelevant where claim is not based on genetics | Gallagher: could move for genetic testing under G. L. c. 209C § 17 to rebut presumption | Court: § 17 permits testing only upon a "proper showing" of relevance; in a nonbiological claim genetic testing is not a proper means to rebut the presumption (though other non‑genetic rebuttal evidence is possible) |
| Whether adopting the plaintiff's reading intrudes on birth mother's autonomy to choose a single‑parent family | Partanen: here the family was jointly formed; statutes protect children's interests in two‑parent support | Gallagher: recognizing nonbiological parent may impose a second parent against birth mother’s choice | Court: Focus is on the facts here (shared intent and conduct); statute’s purpose protects children's welfare and equality of nonmarital children |
Key Cases Cited
- Paternity of Cheryl, 434 Mass. 23 (acknowledgment of paternity can establish parentage despite lack of genetic link)
- Hunter v. Rose, 463 Mass. 488 (applied parentage presumption in same‑sex marriage context)
- C.M. v. P.R., 420 Mass. 220 (distinguished; earlier assumption that paternity required biology rejected by later cases)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 4th 108 (California decision holding nonbiological partner may be presumed parent under similar holding‑out statute)
- In re Guardianship of Madelyn B., 166 N.H. 453 (New Hampshire decision recognizing presumed parenthood for nonbiological partner who held out child)